text:
Can you bust a TFR while operating under IFR?
Is it possible for the pilot to be held responsible for violating a Temporary Flight Restriction if the controller makes a mistake while you are operating under an Instrument flight plan (ie: does not deviate you around it, or allows you to go through it without clearing you with the responsible body)?
It is a commonly held belief that the pilot is immune from TFRs while under IFR, but I found a forum thread that seems to indicate the opposite, where both the pilot and the controller were at fault and both received a suspension.  http://www.studentpilot.com/interact/forum/archive/index.php/t-17212.html
(Bonus: Can anyone find a more official reference for that story, and whether there was any legal followup from AOPA Legal or otherwise?)

Often times there is even an exception for IFR traffic in the outer ring if you read the fine print in the restriction.

That studentpilot.com discussion was all rumor and innuendo

@OP, a decade on the studentpilot.com link is dead...

Sorry, I'm not able to locate an archived copy of that original studentpilot.com forum thread, and it looks like possibly a different company took over that domain.

This is a letter from AOPA that was published in Aero News Network, based on a query made to the FAA on this very topic.
My interpretation of this is that there is no definitive answer, and that both the pilot and the controller have a responsibility, which may answer the question regarding why both parties were suspended in case described in the OP's post.

Hello Mr. Ward,
Your email was forwarded to us here in the Air Traffic department of
  AOPA. I contacted FAA headquarters for an official response to your
  question and received the following explanation:  Guess you could say
  it is the responsibility of both the pilot and air traffic controller:
FAA Order 7110.65 states that ATC shall vector aircraft for separation
  and safety. This includes vectoring aircraft around TFRs as well as
  traffic. For the pilot, the applicable regulation is 14 CFR 91.103
  which pertains to preflight action and states that "Each pilot in
  command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all
  available information concerning that flight," which includes TFRs.
  Additional regulations are covered in 14 CFR 91.13 and whichever CFR
  promulgated the TFR (e.g. 14 CFR 91.137; 14 CFR 91.138; 14 CFR 91.139;
  14 CFR 91.141; 14 CFR 91.143; 14 CFR 91.145)
From a legal standpoint TFR avoidance is a joint responsibility. (This
  is in no way to be construed as a legal interpretation from FAA's
  legal staff). A pilot should not file an IFR flight through a TFR. If
  they did and that flight violated the TFR, they are subject to
  enforcement action.
From an Air Traffic Quality Assurance standpoint, a controller should
  not allow an IFR or VFR flight that they are working to fly though a
  TFR. If they did, they would be subject to an Operational Deviation.
  However, looking at the totality of the circumstances: It is the
  pilot-in-command's (PIC's) duty to know exactly where the airspace is,
  just as it is ATC's responsibility to know where the airspace is. If
  ATC gave the pilot a vector that was going to take the aircraft right
  into the TFR and the pilot did not question the controller (just as if
  s/he would if being vectored into an area of known thunderstorms) then
  it is still the final responsibility of the pilot to question the
  clearance, just as it would be ATC's responsibility to question a
  pilot who wanted to fly directly through a TFR. Luckily, we are not
  aware of any instance where a controller let an IFR aircraft fly into
  a TFR. However, we are aware of many cases where pilots filed flights
  directly through TFRs and thought that ATC would vector them around,
  but instead, the pilot departed VFR expecting to pick up an IFR
  clearance in the air. While waiting for ATC to respond and issue a
  clearance the pilot flew through the TFR. In those cases, FAA
  suspended pilot certificates from 30 to 150 days.
There is no question that it is bad operating practice to file an IFR
  flight through a TFR. During flight planning, pilots should avoid
  TFRs. Arguably, to deliberately file a flight plan through a known
  TFR, in and of itself, would be a violation of 14 CFR 91.103.
Hope this helps!
Heidi J. Williams
Manager
[emphasis mine]

Good letter, as a joint responsibility both the pilot and controller can get in trouble.  The letter even states that the pilot should question the controller. So the answer to the original question wouldn't really be undefined. Yes, a pilot can get in trouble for flying through it, as I stated in my original answer.

A pilot can get in trouble if he knows or should know it's there. Ms Williams' quote states specifically the pilot's responsibility for planning the route happens before the flight, so it would extend primarily to pre-planned or long-term TFRs like airshows, the Disney parks, Dubya's house etc. In-flight, he's totally dependent on ATC for information on TFRs popping up for law enforcement or firefighting.

I think that you are confusing the rules for Restricted airspace and those for TFR's.
Depending on the type of TFR, there are different regulation that cover them, but they are very similar.  For instance, Presidential TFR's are governed by the following:

§91.141   Flight restrictions in the proximity of the Presidential and
  other parties. No person may operate an aircraft over or in the
  vicinity of any area to be visited or traveled by the President, the
  Vice President, or other public figures contrary to the restrictions
  established by the Administrator and published in a Notice to Airmen
  (NOTAM).

(emphasis mine)
Note that it specifically says that "No person may operate an aircraft...contrary to the restrictions established by the Administrator and published in a Notice to Airmen".  Operating IFR does not preclude you from that responsibility.

Restricted areas on the other hand are covered by the following regulation:

§91.133   Restricted and prohibited areas. (a) No person may operate
  an aircraft within a restricted area (designated in part 73) contrary
  to the restrictions imposed, or within a prohibited area, unless that person has the permission of the using or controlling agency, as appropriate.

(emphasis mine)
If ATC clears you into a restricted area (or even assigns a heading which takes you into it), they have given you the required permission.

You can actually be cleared through via IFR.  Look at any VIP TFR listed on http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html and it will have at the bottom some exceptions.  Here's a typical one:  1) All IFR arrivals or departures to/from airports within this TFR. 2)
Approved; law enforcement, fire fighting, military aircraft ... and MEDEVAC/air ambulance flights. 3) Aircraft operations necessitated for safety or emergency reasons. 4) Aircraft that receive ATC authorization in consultation with the air traffic security coordinator (ATSC) via the domestic events network(DEN).

@bovine: Absolutely, you can be cleared through it in accordance with the TFR, but not just because "ATC said it was okay".  The reg even says "contrary to the restrictions established by the Administrator and published in a NOTAM".  I'll add a little to the answer though to make that more clear.  Thanks!

Okay, but almost all TFR NOTAMs generally have an exception that explicitly says "Unless authorized by ATC" or "Aircraft that receive ATC authorization" or similar wording.

@bovine: If it does, then great!  It is in accordance with the NOTAM/TFR.  If not though, then you would be in trouble.

@bovine: By the way, notice that even in your "typical" exceptions that you highlighted in your comment above, IF they were even there for the flight in question, he received a radar vector through the airspace (so 1 doesn't apply) and ATC told him that the airspace was "cold" so clearly didn't do the "in consultation with the ATSC via the DEN" so 4 wouldn't apply either.  I feel for that poor pilot, especially since he asked about it (and I don't think he should have received a suspension), but it doesn't make what he did legal....

@bovine One last thing that I just thought of:  On the presidential TFR that you mention: they also have smaller inner rings that do not have the exceptions that allow for IFR traffic.  If ATC tried to vector you into one of those, I would highly recommend that you politely refuse!

That forum post doesn't say what type of TFR was involved, nor whether there was any exception like the ones I noted.  I agree it's unfortunate for that pilot, and would like to think that it was eventually fought and won in his favor.

@Lnafziger: If a pilot asks ATC about a NOTAM that was in effect when the pilot took off, and ATC says it has been canceled or amended, would a pilot be entitled to believe such a statement?

@supercat Good question! I'd like to think that if you asked and were given incorrect information that the FAA would take that into consideration, but I've seen instances where the FAA holds the position that the PIC "should have known".  I'm not aware of a definitive answer though.

Here is a specific example that seems to indicate that pilots can be inside at least some TFRs while under ATC control:
The Seattle Stadiums for both Football and Baseball (Century Link Field and Safeco Stadium) are pretty much right in the approach/departure paths for KBFIs 31R / 31L runways.
During gametimes, there is a Stadium TFR around the stadiums to an altitude of 3,000 AGL.
But plenty of aircraft, both VFR and IFR, continue to go in and out of BFI during game times, under the supervision of BFI controllers. (The airspace is Class D, below Bravo).
I've even seen aircraft maneuver within the TFR (eg. not passing directly through it in a straight line; sometimes circling).
Obviously, these pilots aren't getting busted left-and-right for violating the TFR.  As long as they're communicating with the tower, and make their intentions clear, its OK.
I doubt you'll see controllers clear aircraft through most TFRs, such as VIP TFRs.
But it is entirely possible you could get cleared through some TFRs.

From the NOTAM: "THE RESTRICTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY AND IN CONTACT WITH ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY OF FLIGHT PURPOSES." If you're talking to a controller on approach to land, you're exempted from the TFR.

@NathanG: Thats exactly what I described: you can be in the TFR space, and be legal, at least for this TFR.  Other TFRs may not allow this.

I have a friend who was flying VFR unaware of a nearby stadium TFR, then called up ATC to request flight following through the area and they told her to immediately change headings because of the stadium TFR rather than approving her to transit the TFR. Simply being in contact with ATC doesn't mean that they will clear you through a TFR, even if that would be more convenient.

Here's something that leads me to answer in the affirmative, though unlikely:
If the TFR (such as the VIP restrictions we often see in the USA) prohibits flight training, but you are on an IFR flight plan and the controller clears you through the TFR, did you still break it? (Such would be the case if you were an instrument student.) I'd say that yes, you did, as you failed to comply with the restrictions.
However, would you get busted for this? Probably not, unless something else went wrong and the nature of the operation was revealed. (Of course, to avoid this discrepancy, you could say that the CFI was the PIC, and was getting you out of the TFR so that you could conduct training elsewhere.)


text:
Can St. Elmo's Fire cause instruments to fail?
Can St. Elmo's Fire on an aircraft cause instruments to fail or give erratic readings, primarily with glass cockpits? Are there backup instruments that would not be affected? Does it affect radio transmissions?

You may want to check out the epic story of British Airways Flight 9 on Air Crash Investigations/Mayday.

Yes, the strong magnetic fields which are created can cause all of those problems if it gets bad enough.
To quote the AIM where they talk about Precipitation Static (which is one method of creating St. Elmo's Fire):
AIM 7-5-11. Precipitation Static

b. A review of pilot reports often shows different symptoms with each
  problem that is encountered. The following list of problems is a
  summary of many pilot reports from many different aircraft. Each
  problem was caused by P-static:
1. Complete loss of VHF communications.
2. Erroneous magnetic compass readings (30 percent in error).
3. High pitched squeal on audio.
4. Motor boat sound on audio.
5. Loss of all avionics in clouds.
6. VLF navigation system inoperative most of the time.
7. Erratic instrument readouts.
8. Weak transmissions and poor receptivity of radios.
9. "St. Elmo's Fire" on windshield.
c. Each of these symptoms is caused by one general problem on the
  airframe. This problem is the inability of the accumulated charge to
  flow easily to the wing tips and tail of the airframe, and properly
  discharge to the airstream.

I can say from personal experience that the radio interference can be deafening and make it exceptionally difficult to hear ATC.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are there limits to speeds at certain altitudes?
Are there speeds that cannot be exceeded at certain altitudes?

The following maximum speeds apply in the US (A few aren't based on altitude, but I've included them to be more complete):

91.817: Mach 1 over land (with a few exceptions that are noted in Appendix B to 91.817)
91.117(a): 250 KIAS below 10,000 ft. MSL
91.117(b): 200 KIAS below 2,500 ft. within 4NM of the primary airport for Class C and D airspace (unless within Class B airspace)
91.117(c): 200 KIAS under the shelf of Class B airspace
91.117(c): 200 KIAS in a VFR corridor through Class B airspace
AIM 5-3-8(2): Maximum holding speeds:

At or below 6,000 ft. 200 KIAS
6,001 to 14,000 ft. 230 KIAS
Above 14,000 ft 265 KIAS

Some NOTAMs specify a maximum speed when operating within their limits.
AIM 5-7-2: Maximum speed as assigned by ATC

91.117(d): Any of these speeds may be exceeded if the minimum safe airspeed for the aircraft is higher and you notify ATC.
91.101 and AIM 5-7-2 NOTE 2 state that none of these apply when more than 12 NM from the coast of the united states.  Because of this, you will often see pilots fly at greater than 250 KIAS when below 10,000 feet and more than 12 NM off-shore.
Aircraft specific limitations must also be complied with.

When considering what speeds my own plane is capable of... nope, no speed limits at all (beyond those which gravitiy and the earth will levy a penalty for)! :P

@mah Of course, physics and aerodynamics may want a few words with you as well if you push it too hard...

Adding afterburners to a Cessan 152, what could go wrong?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What's a quick way to determine which runway to use?
Let's say I call up Wx and have the wind direction and I know the runway headings from my charts and the pattern is empty. I can do the math, but it's tedious and slow and even worse when there are multiple runways. This is what I usually do:

Runways are 13 and 31
Wind is 253° which rounds to 25
$25-13=12$
$31-25=6$
I'm going to use Runway 31

Is there a trick to determine best runway quickly without doing the math?

I was actually searching around for some ways to calculate this faster and I love your simple math solution.  Larger number - smaller number. If it's less than or equal to 9 that is your runway.  If not, it's the other runway.

This might take a few seconds longer, but it's math-free: On your kneeboard, draw a quadrant (like this: +). Draw a line through it for your runway(s). Draw an arrow to represent the wind. The answer will be apparent. Do it enough times, and you'll be able to visualize the drawing without actually doing it.
It's also a great technique for calculating holds.

Very quickly, you'll be doing this in your head. Now, hold entry points, those I still have to draw.

Is there a trick to determine best runway quickly without doing the math?

Aside from "Asking the other pilots in the pattern / UNICOM", none I'm aware of.
The closest thing to a "trick" I can offer you if you're going in to a completely unattended field are the following suggestions:

If your directional gyro (DG) has a heading bug, set the heading bug to the wind direction.
Now find the runway alignment closest to the bug. That's the runway you want.
(If your DG doesn't have a heading bug you may still be able to do this visually easier than doing math - of course this relies on you flying in a plane with a  DG or a vertical card compass...).
Break out your E6B, dial in the wind direction, and find the closest runway heading.
Same logic as (1), but for when you're stuck in a Piper Cub with only the wet compass.
One drawback - it only works with mechanical flight computers...
If you have your sectional out, lay your pen or ruler on it to show the wind direction.
See which runway alignment is closest to the ruler. That's the runway you want.
Count on your fingers.
(Seriously, this is what I do most of the time. I'm an engineer, I can't add and subtract!)

In uncontrolled airports I've avoided problems simply by asking on CTAF which runway is in use when 10-7SM out. This has worked out well because often times there are aircraft in the pattern on the wrong runway (from the perspective of crosswind) because conditions changed and traffic has been busy, or someone is just doing their own thing.
I've even had a unicom station respond with a recommendation when nobody in the air responded. It doesn't hurt to ask and if you get no response a quick glance at the heading indicator can save you the math by just visualizing the runways over the indicator and choosing the one that's closest to the wind.

Yes. In general, you should do what the other pilots are doing. This is for obvious safety reasons, and because the locals might know something you don't know.

When I arrive at an uncontrolled airport, and there's nobody there to tell me what everybody else is doing, I overfly the airport to get the lay of the land and to look at the wind sock. This should be SOP for everybody.
One glance at the wind sock will tell you which runway the winds favor. No math or diagrams required.
You should also be looking for a tetrahedron. This will also give you information about the pattern.
Nominally, this is the authoritative answer about landing direction, but I've known airports where the tetrahedron was inoperative. If the wind is strong and the wind sock contradicts the tetrahedron, consider trusting the wind sock instead. Or better yet, consult the locals.

The only way you can avoid doing the math is if someone else has already done it for you and you have the results of their work available.
Towered airports, of course, will control the runway direction from the ground, and will handle any lighting systems. At non-towered but fairly busy airports there will be an accepted pattern in use, and when anyone notices the windsock is pointing the other way the pilots can coordinate to "turn the airport around" (I'm actually curious how that happens; for strips that always have a left-hand or right-hand pattern, the answer is simply to not turn to final and instead just circle to the other end, but for airstrips where, for instance, powered planes must always stay to one side of the airport to avoid a residential neighborhood, you can't circle that way, and must instead make a 180 away from the airport to reverse the pattern direction).
However, your question infers that no radio chatter or other traffic is available to follow, and you have to determine it for yourself. You can still get some help in these cases.

Non-towered airports can still be lit; end lights and the LDI tetrahedron can be controlled from a simple automated weather station, and activated on request (to save energy) by pilots tuning to a station and clicking the mike.
If the pattern is truly empty, you can maneuver around the strip, look for the windsock, and approach in the direction closest to its tail.
Use a compass card; any will do, you have several in your cockpit, or you could even have a literal "compass card", a rose drawn on an index card on your clipboard or the inside cover of your notebook (whatever you're using for quick reference or shorthand notes on your flight). You know wind is from 225* and your options for runways are 13(0) or 31(0). A quick look at the dial will show you which runway choice is closer to the wind.

Just remember not to get confused by the numbers on the rose; to land on runway 31, you have to go around to the southeast end, even though 310* is marked on the northwest quadrant of the compass rose; runways are labelled according to the heading you'll be on while using them.

Rather than calculating off the wind direction, start with the runway headings. 13-9=4 and 13+9=22. If the wind is 040-220 use 13, otherwise use 31.
I have an HSI so I set the bug to the wind heading and the CDI to the runway, then press vectors-to-final to get an extended centerline.
Both easy peasy

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Airplane longitudinal control: pitch or power?
I recently came across some slides from a flight school teaching, for the initial climb after take-off and for the approach, the strategy of controlling/adjusting

RoC/RoD with power
Speed with attitude

I tried to inform myself a bit on the subject, because I am more familiar with the idea of controlling

RoC/RoD with attitude
Speed with power

I came to understand that this is mostly a difference between VFR vs IFR flight.
Is this true?
Does the first approach actually have benefits in terms of ability for the pilot to control the plane in VFR flight? If yes, how and which?

"Power for ROD, attitude for speed" is typically taught to ab-initio students in single-engine-piston aircraft.
Airlines use "Thrust for speed, attitude for glideslope". Students will typically transition to using this technique during the instrument rating, to prepare them for airliners.

I was wondering how long that it would take for this question to come up.
It is the old "pitch -vs- power" airspeed control technique debate that rages throughout the aviation world.  There are strong proponents of both techniques (and they seem to view it almost as a religious debate in that the other side can never be right, no matter what), and both sides have good reasons for it!
Instead of saying that one is better than the other, let's just say that they are both techniques for managing the potential energy of the airplane (the airspeed that can be traded for altitude and vice-versa).  In fact, this is how I like to think about it (and don't pick a side):

If you change the pitch of the aircraft without changing power, the airspeed will stabilize out at a new value.

Pitch up and you lower the airspeed.
Pitch down and you raise the airspeed.

If you change the power setting of the aircraft without changing the pitch, the airspeed will stabilize out at a new value.

Add power and you raise the airspeed.
Reduce power and you lower the airspeed.

You can change both at the same time and get various results.

You can end up with the same airspeed that you had before.
You can end up with a lot more airspeed.
You can end up with a lot less airspeed.

Most often you need to change both at the same time in order to properly manage your airspeed.
So basically it comes down to what you want to accomplish.  If you need to change the airspeed you have two ways to do it, but used individually each comes with a side-effect.  In some situations this may be okay or even desirable, but you need to be aware of what your actions are going to accomplish.

Let's look at a specific example:
Sometimes, especially on an instrument approach, you want to maintain your current airspeed while changing your vertical speed.

Let's say that you are a little high on the glideslope.

If you simply pitch down to recapture the glideslope, you will gain airspeed but will recapture it quickly.
If you simply reduce the power to recapture the glideslope, you will lose airspeed but it will take longer than using pitch.
If you want to maintain your airspeed while recapturing the glideslope (typical on an instrument approach) then you would pitch down and reduce power at the same time, and when you recapture the glideslope you will pitch back up to maintain it and add power to maintain your current airspeed.

The answer to such polarizing questions is often "Both. At the same time." -- but why let reality & physics spoil a good fight? :)

+1 to both question and answer. And thank you for making the answer objective and clearly describing the physics.

"If you change the power setting of the aircraft without changing the pitch, the airspeed will stabilize out at a new value." If you change power while maintaining a constant pitch, won't you change the RoC, rather than the airspeed? You will, of course, briefly change the airspeed, but then the aircraft will trade this airspeed difference off for a vertical acceleration and you'll end up at about the same airspeed you started with after the acceleration is complete, but with a different ROC (again, assuming no change in pitch input.)

@reirab If pitch does not change at all, your airspeed will change with a change of power.  Note that in practice, you will need to make a pitch trim change in order to maintain the same pitch hands off, so perhaps that is what you are thinking of?  The only reason that an airplane maintains the same speed (other than briefly as you mention) when you change power is because it is trimmed to do so, and pitch will change to keep the aerodynamic forces in balance.  My statements refer to a constant pitch though.

@Lnafziger Ah, ok, I was thinking constant pitch input, not necessarily constant pitch. For example, if I trim a Cherokee for 85 knots and take my hands completely off the yoke, if I add power, the plane will climb at 85 knots. If I reduce power, it will descend at 85 knots (the pitch will change on its own, but with no change in pitch input.)

Similarly, if I raise the nose (either by trim or the yoke) without adding power, I'll briefly trade airspeed for altitude, then resume the same rate of climb I had before, only at a lower airspeed.

@reirab -A constant pitch "input" will, to a first approximation, maintain a constant angle-of-attack, not a constant pitch attitude.  Even at a constant angle-of-attack there is some variation in airspeed as power varies, but in the opposite direction as you might expect.  For example holding the same high angle-attack you'd normally use for an efficient glide, and adding enough thrust to sustain a 60-degree climb path, means that the airspeed must ultimately decrease, or else the excess lift will tend to make the climb path to curve closer to vertical.

@reirab - ctd - During the time this deceleration is happening, you'll need to temporarily decrease the angle-of-attack a bit if you don't want to "overshoot" your target 60-degree climb angle.Recalling of course that less lift is required for a climb than for level flight.  Exactly the same logic holds true in a 60- degree dive, which would be only possible if you deployed some sort of large drogue chute or other similar device to increase the drag coefficient, as long as we're still talking about flying at a high angle-of-attack.

@reirab  - ctd - see https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/40921/does-lift-equal-weight-in-a-climb/56476#56476

The practical argument for teaching the first approach to ab-initio students concerns developing safe responses to problems:

Falling short on approach (too high a rate of descent): If your first reaction is to raise the nose, you may well be creating the more dangerous 'too slow on approach' situation.
Power failure: If you think power controls speed, then you have lost the ability to maintain the correct speed. Furthermore, raising the nose will not keep you in the air (though it will slow you down).

From a more theoretical point of view, what does power allow a powered aircraft do that a glider cannot? It allows it to gain and maintain altitude relative to the airmass.
This point of view works well for flying small, low-powered, single-engined airplanes in VMC; beyond that, I cannot say.

This view also works well in regards to physics. :) The other one, not so much. I promise you that if you raise the nose without adding power you will not increase your rate of climb in a sustainable manner. Instead, you will briefly trade your airspeed for altitude (kinetic energy for potential energy,) and then you'll settle back to roughly whatever rate of climb you had before while at a slower airspeed.

"What does power allow a powered aircraft do that a glider cannot?": Clinching argument, easy to remember :-)

@reirab.  The statement in your comment is only true if you disregard the change in drag for differing airspeeds.

@mins  A glider only climbs with energy from the environment. i.e.  thermals, orographic lifting, etc.  A plane climbs due to excess energy from the engine.  Either without sufficient excess energy will neither climb or stay in the air very long.

Due to longitudinal stability, aircraft tends to maintain constant angle of attack. In straight flight the wing loading is constant, so speed remains the only significant factor and the aircraft tends to maintain constant speed (or rather oscillate around it in phugoid oscillation). If you increase the power and speed is maintained, law of conservation of energy dictates that the aircraft has to climb and when power is reduced it has to descend. So in theory you control speed with elevator (and trim so it is maintained without pressure on the controls) and vertical speed with power. See How It Flies, chapter 2 for a detailed discusson.
In practice changing power affects pitch trim too, so you need to always adjust both. And you have to arrest the phugoid oscillation.
It might be interesting to note that Airbus control laws change the rules so that attitude controls climb/descent and power controls speed by automatically adjusting the trim.

+1 For Law of Conservation of Energy. That's the answer. Pulling back does not give you energy for free. It just trades kinetic energy for potential energy.

I think it also depends on kind of aircraft you are flying.
In jet aircraft speed is always controlled with power, lowering the nose to try and gain some speed on short final would destabilise the aircraft and probably lead to a more "firm" arrival.
Aircraft with underslung engines require forward pressure when applying power, which is quite noticeable on approach, due to pitch-power couple. The reverse is also true, take power off and you will need to trim back.


text:
Is it possible to "pimp up your aircraft" with an audio system?
Can aircraft be modified to have an enormous audio system, like the ones in cars? Has the FAA got any regulations on this (or maybe on in-cabin maximum noise volume?), would power be a limitation for the audio system?

Absolutely not, as it would not be in the sense of security.

It would block engine sounds (eg you won't be able to hear a rough engine)
It would block warning sounds, for example stall warnings
It would block any other abnormal sounds
You will have problems understanding ATC (and they will have even more problems understanding you)

These are just some reasons out of my head. If you want to listen to music inflight, buy a good headset with an AUX-In socket, those normally reduce the volume as soon as a transmission is incoming.
And apart from the audio volume, it would also put a high load on the battery / alternator, which are probably not able to handle such a high load.

Automatic volume reduction could apply just as well to any audio system, not only headsets.  But the rest of your points are good.

I would argue that you don't have to turn it all of the way up while in flight.  :-)

These are all great reasons why you shouldn't install such a system - I don't see any reason you couldn't do so though (provided the electrical system has adequate capacity & your monster subwoofers don't create a weight and balance issue...

@voretaq7 I don't that any monster speakers are FAA approved though!  :-)

It would be 'interesting' to see if the monster subwoofers will be able to shake loose and wreak havoc in your airplane!

I have an mp3 mplayer into my intercom, it cuts out when anyone on frequency transmits. However, I turn it off when I'm on approach/tower/ground. Have a nervous passenger? Throw some tunes on, it will relax them. Long X-Country? Yea, tunes please.

While there are many great reasons not to do this it would seem from a cursory scan of the FARs that the answer is "Yes, you can." -- At least one company (Alto Aviation) is producing aircraft entertainment systems with relatively "pimped out" audio capabilities.
These systems seem more geared toward "cabin class" aircraft where the crew and passenger compartments are separated (mainly business twin/turboprop/jet aircraft), though I suppose you could conceivably install it in something like a PA-32 or Cessna 206, or even light piston singles if you wanted to.
Such an installation would be subject to the same restrictions as any electrical device installation (requiring a check to ensure it doesn't overload the electrical system, and verification that it won't interfere with navigation or communication equipment), and I would imagine some of the work required may qualify as a "major alteration" as a change to the "basic design of the electrical system" may be involved.
There may also be additional operating restrictions placed on the installed equipment (like "Not permitted for use during taxi, takeoff, or landing" to prevent it from being a distraction/safety hazard during critical phases of flight).

Alright then I'm also gonna see if I can put airbags in the landing gear to make the plane drop and rise along with the bass ;)


text:
How are maps loaded in UAVs?
My question intends to find out how maps are downloaded/buffered at Ground Control Station's for UAV operations. I understand GPS transmitters relay the exact location of an aircraft on a map. However, the map needs to be loaded/buffered in real time as the UAV covers ground.
For a UAV as large as the RQ-4 Global Hawk, with a range of 14000 kms, how is the map loaded in real time?
On the other hand, for amateur or small scale UAVs/MAVs, is the map updated in real time as the aircraft/rotorcraft covers more ground? Or is that the map is downloaded pre-flight, based on the range of the aircraft? This would be preferable in terrains with poor or no signal connectivity.

Isn't it more likely that a military system like the RQ-4 ground station would have pre-loaded map data, like a $50 satnav does? I'm sure the costs are trivial compared to the price of an RQ 4. They also probably need it in advance for mission planning and rehearsal.

for military uavs, range should be interpreted as time on station, where the aircraft loiters around a particular area for a length of time.  unmanned aircraft are rarely (if at all) flown from one base to another over such a distance; there's too many unknowns to raise the risk level for such a mission.  typically, they're disassembled for transport and reassembled in theater.

For an application that were controlling a hobbyist UAV one could use something like the Google Maps API.  It provides services and data that will scale as the user scrolls in and out and as the UAV transitions to different areas.  It also has the advantage of having visual and road data as an option.  The downside is that unless you download enough data ahead of time you must have some sort of data connection to the application.  But, with the greater availability of the fast cell based data connections this is becoming less of an issue.

You seem to assume the maps are being transmitted from the UAV.
They are almost certainly not (and if they are that's a poorly engineered system and I would be embarrassed that my government wasted my tax dollars on such a lousy design).
Maps are relatively static data, so it would be logical to store them on the computers at the ground control station (where you could have the entire world's terrain and likely aeronautical charts/airspace boundaries on your hard drive, along with current weather data and other useful information).
Moving the map to keep up with the position being relayed from the UAV is computationally trivial: iPads do it for real aircraft (ForeFlight & similar products) and your car's GPS system does it when you drive - neither system is as powerful as the typical desktop computer.
All the UAV would relay to the ground station is its position (and any other pertinent data dictated by its mission, such as photos/video). This arrangement minimizes the bandwidth required to control the vehicle, as well as its RF signature (less stuff to transmit back to base).

For autonomous UAVs, particularly ones which have to avoid airspace incursions, some subset of airspace data appropriate to the route of flight may be loaded on the vehicle, but I wouldn't call these "maps" - it's a much more compact representation of coordinates marking boundaries in 3D space (similar to the Jeppesen NavData products - possibly even using those products) . Such vehicles may also have terrain data loaded before flight if they lack other means to avoid collisions with terrain while operating autonomously.

Disclaimer: I have no experience with the RQ4 or any other military UAVs - this is just a common-sense engineering assessment.

Thanks for the answer, however, i'd like to clarify that i did not assume the maps are transmitted from the UAV. That would indeed be a very poor work of engineering. I feel that for hobby/small scale UAVs, it would be cumbersome to keep large maps of different zoom values stored beforehand. And yes, moving a map to keep up with the UAV is no biggie :)

@Pranav I suppose it depends on how many zoom levels you need, for example most aviation apps provide 3 levels of zoom for VFR charts (which are actually three separate maps: WAC, Sectional, and TAC). It's not too difficult to pick which chart to show based on the current zoom level. For short-range UAVs you wouldn't need as extensive a map collection and one high-res georeferenced map would probably be good enough.

Indeed, for short range UAVs, the map requirements wouldn't be too large. One more thing, though this might be an extension to the question, how are maps usually downloaded for small scale UAVs?

I don't even think "maps" would have to be downloaded to the UAV. Using common sense engineering, you would just provide a start point and end point. A UAV could then just circle the area for a predetermined amount of time and then return. It doesn't need maps. If it was remotely controlled, it still wouldn't need maps either. The UAV just needs to report it's position and the ground station can just display it on a map. I have no experience with UAVs so this is just an educated guess.

@Pranav: 64 GB microSD cards are common now. You can fit very detailed world map on that. So storing the map is not a problem. Where to get a good one is more of a concern for hobbyist.

@staticx: It could use an elevation map to avoid terrain if you want to have it flying low. Similar to how EGPWS works.

@JanHudec: I would imagine it has an altimeter. Keep it at the desired altitude to prevent it from getting shot down would be ideal (in the case of the military UAVs). No maps needed.

@staticx: That's the problem. To prevent it from getting shot down you have to keep it ~200 ft above ground level. So you need to know where the ground level is.

@JanHudec: I have no experience with UAVs but I would imagine it could be preprogrammed. Say for Afghanistan or some other area where you know the highest point in your area.

@staticx: The problem is that the highest point in the area is often way too high. When a combat aerial vehicle—any of them—wants to get somewhere unnoticed, it has to do "terrain following". Maintaining about 200 ft above ground, climbing and descending according to the terrain profile and often choosing path through the valleys and passes below the peaks around. All fighters and most bombers can do this. There is no reason why UAVs wouldn't be able to do the same. They are slow and have limited defences, so they need it even more.

@JanHudec: yes, map of the earth. But not for a UAV

@Pranav: Having used several of the open source hobbyist UAV hardware myself I can say that at least for hobbyist UAVs you don't upload maps to the UAV you just upload waypoints - a list of coordinates the UAV is supposed to fly to.

@slebetman I am not asking about uploading maps to the UAV. I am simply asking how maps are obtained at the GCS. Thanks to all the informative replies, i seem to have understood the working better.

@staticx Of course, downloading maps to the UAV would be quite useless. I was asking how maps are stored/loaded/downloaded at the GCS only. Tracking the UAV on the map would be quite an easy task using GPS transmissions.

@Pranav You can either store it on a local hard drive or load it from a remote server.  There are a variety of ways to do each option.

Military UAV's have a library of maps (on a hard drive associated with the ground control station) that the pilot chooses from while flying.  Formal flying charts are loaded underneath a 'moving map' display.  The pilot can select a wide variety of charts from a small scale GNC to a large scale VFR chart.
There is a limit to the buffering obviously, and if the aircraft flies outside of the buffer than the pilot just manually loads a new map for the new area.

generally speaking, a military uas pilot will have all the maps required for his area of responsibility, loaded during preflight as mission requires.  manually loading maps during mission would be a very rare event, as it would mean an extreme deviation from an otherwise normal mission.  from my experience, we had map data in the system for areas well outside our general aor.  so if you are flying in the centcom aor (already really huge), you will generally have all that map data available already.  flying outside that area gets geopolitical real fast.

Amatorial drones: normally these boards have flash memory as not-mandatory, everything has to be loaded in to RAM or on limited space on-board. Also communication between UAV and GCS is not mandatory.
Most complete (open) GCS + software seems to be ArduPilot, and its trick is that the map is only PC-based; you set your travel point (waypoint) on GCS, connect the UAV by cable if no wireless link is present, upload the waypoint GPS coordinates, and let the mission begin.
If you have a wireless link you can obviously load or edit waypoint on-the-fly.
Now think about this: how a map should be helpful to a drone? Because he may recalculate the route on its own.
But why should it do so?
Drones normally are "blind" to environment, and radar/lidar/vision items are complex, expensive or require a lot of computing power and space on the drone.
In that case adding a microSD with the map in full precision of the region you are gonna fly is not a problem (OpenStreetMap planet map is about 40GB), but again I assume the pathing algorithm would just override the waypoint setting every time a course correction is needed, and another specialized algorithm would kick in to avoid low-term collision, which ignores completely the route.
Please note that many drones have a "return to home" function, that when the link is lost and mission complete, the drone heads directly to home. And as many amatorial drones are blind, that may have unexpected results.


text:
What kind of aircraft may land on iced areas, like Antarctica?
I know some aircraft may land on iced surfaces. what are the difficulties associated and is this limited to specially designed aircraft.

Is there some conditions necessary for the landing and the next takeoff.
Where are the main iced airfields currently active?

you mean this?

Gotta admit: pretty friggin' awesome! But I was reffering a normal plane/Jet Airliner/Sesna. Or anything that can fly +300mph

I've managed to find out two things about Antarctica: 1st "They don't want you there" , and 2nd:Around +30,000$ to visit. So yeah, someone might shoot a plane down if venturing on "government-property" like Antarctica.. Just like "Area 51",  which is a no-fly zone last time I checked.

@NormLDude:  Can you cite any sources for that?  The Antarctic Treaty of 1961 (and still in force today) specifically  bans military activity on that continent.  (P.S.   I have multiple relatives who have been to the Antarctic, both by boat and plane, as tourists and bonafide scientists)

I just acknowledged a Naval  presence of any sort, wether or not they would actually shoot a plane down or even be visible on a radar is not the question. It was about landing on the snow rift.

I took out the military stuff, just stuck with Antarctica fields.

I get where you're headed with the edits, @mins, but I think you've totally changed the point of the question. It now reads (to me) to be "What aircraft operate in the Antarctic?", where the original was "In an emergency could any aircraft land in the Antarctic?"

I'll leave it to the OP, as it's his question, just wanted to give my impression of it. Of course, there's already an accepted answer, and it seems to answer the original intent of the question, not the new one, so this may be a bit confusing now.

NormLDude (and @FreeMan): I may have edited a bit further than I should have (now that I look at it again, this is my feeling). Feel free to edit or revert to your own version. That was with good intentions, please accept my apologies by advance if the result bothers you.

@NormLDude You should read this

@NormLDude Sesna -> Cessna?

It's ok, still an interesting question. From what I'm reading, it seems very simple to get to Antarctica and that a person should have no troubles with any kind of military if a person should have to land in case of emergency. The primary idea/question was about the 250ft rift that can be seen in Antarctica, and if an airplane (of any type) could land upon it.

possible duplicate of How do aircraft land on snow?

Dude, stop totally changing the question!!

"On the rifts?" What are you even talking about with this latest title change? Answering this question is like landing... on an aircraft carrier in high seas... except the aircraft carrier is sinking...

@NormLDude if you have a different question to ask, then ask it in a new question instead of changing this one, invalidating the answers.

While the general consensus is "Yes, any aircraft could use the Antarctic as an emergency airfield and land successfully", this report (mentioned by foobarbecue) indicates that it's highly unlikely that most aircraft would be able to make it there to land.

@mins There are many references to the Point of Safe Return mentioned for both 757 and Hercules aircraft flying from Christchurch to Pegasus Field. My assumption is that a flight would be diverting to the Antarctic on its way to somewhere else. There may be Great Circle Routes that fly over the Antarctic which would leave some of the Antarctic airfields within reach as emergency landing points. The specific paragraph is probably somewhere in section 2.

@NormLDude I now wonder if we've all mis-understood your use of the word 'rift'... can you give a coordinate location of this "250ft rift" you mention?

@FreeMan: Thanks. I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about landing capability itself, not flight range.

http://i.imgur.com/P6Soh.jpg , I hope that pic works.

@NormLDude That's just the edge of an ice sheet somewhere and it's clear that it is nowhere near 2500 feet high.  The coast of Antartica does not look like that.    These images are more representative.

Yes it could, same way it would preform an emergency landing any where else. There are ice runways out there and its not all that uncommon to see small GA planes landing on frozen lakes in the winter. There are considerations when it comes to breaking and what not but in the end of the day you have the ability to always land into the wind (since you are picking your touch down heading provided there are limited obstacles). Landing into the wind is also key as a result of some of the potentially high winds in the arctic and antarctic shelves. The largest issue is not knowing how thick the ice is. While I don't know an enormous amount about north or south pole geology the ice thickness varies and in some places could not support an aircraft landing. For the most part the south pole ice is very thick (9000ft) by all estimates, but the outer edges and the ice that does not reside above the landmass could be thinner. Keep in mind that parts of the arctic/antarctic are in total dark for a part of the year so you may be looking at nigh procedures when landing.
Interestingly enough, Antarctica actually has 20 airports so you may even be able to put down on a strip depending on where you are.

The question is about Antarctica (South Pole).  This response references the Arctic (North Pole)

A lot of these points do apply to the south pole as well, but abelenky is right, the question is not about the North Pole...

I doubt the original questioner specifically meant Antarctica, even though that name was used. After all a Cessna (mentioned in a comment) wouldn't reach Antarctica without refuelling, I think. I guess @Dave's answer was downvoted for pedantic reasons...

The answer has been updated to reflect information on both poles.

I dimly remember a plane having to visit Antarctica in winter, for an emergency Medevac, and that one of the problems was that it had to keep moving once landed or its skis would freeze to the ice.

"Keep in mind that parts of the arctic/antarctic are dark for most of the year " - Not sure what you mean here.  Ratio of day to night is the same in the artic as in all other places on the globe.  Ratio of sun partially over the horizon to sun fully below the horizon is greater in the artics than closer to equator.

That is incorrect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

@Taemyr See also: Midnight sun. Since Earth's axis of rotation is tilted (i.e. not perpendicular to its orbital plane,) during the winter at each pole, areas within the polar circles will have days where sun never comes above the horizon and days in the summer where it remains above the horizon. The closer you get to the pole, the longer this lasts. At the poles themselves, the sun only rises and sets one time all year, since points along the Earth's axis of rotation don't actually move as the Earth rotates.

@Taemyr While I haven't visited Antarctica, I have experienced midnight sun on a flight from the U.S. to Asia, which had a flight path well into the Arctic Circle. You don't have to be anywhere near the poles to experience very significant seasonal day length differences, though. I live in the Southern U.S. and even here, the sun is fully above the horizon until 8 pm or later in the summer, but only until about 3:30-4:00 pm in the winter.

@reirab: I think Taemyr means that totalled across the year, the poles experience the same number of hours with the sun above the horizon as anywhere else does. So, mentioning that the year happens to include some periods of darkness longer than 24 hours, and therefore that a night landing might be required in an emergency, is not really any different from mentioning that an emergency landing at the equator might occur at night. Yeah, sometimes it's dark. Like anywhere. It's once you land and stay there a while that the fact it's dark all "day" starts to matter.

And since the sun lingers close to or straddling the horizon for more hours at the poles than it does at the equator, actually the poles have more hours of passable daylight per year than the equator, so if anything a night landing is less likely :-) The antarctic is not "dark for most of the year", except perhaps in some deep valleys and the like, where the relatively low angle of the sun means they'd be even more shaded than the equivalent terrain at the equator would be.

@SteveJessop Ah, I didn't catch the "most" part in the post Taemyr was replying to, as it was edited to a correct statement before I saw it. I misread Taemyr's comment as denying polar night. Polar night does make a difference, though, when your only option for landing somewhere for a few weeks to a few months at a time is a night landing. That's quite different from the equator where it will always be daylight within a maximum of 12 hours from the current time. Of course, that matters more for intentionally scheduling landings than for emergency diversions.

@andy,  The OP did mean Antarctica. It's becoming clear through their question history or comments that they are a "flat earth" believer. In order to support this, amongst the many other bizarre claims, they claim that Antarctica is not a continent but rather is a circular wall of ice.Anyone trying to go around the globe would instead go around in a circle on a flat earth. In order to protect the "secret", the elites of the World guard Antarctica with military force to prevent anyone crossing the wall and see that the Earth is flat.Don't bother trying to educate a flatter.They are beyond hope.

@Simon then better not tell him about that medical evacuation there a while ago - probably a secret military operation under cover. :)

I've spent 6 summers in Antarctica (Mt. Erebus), travelling through McMurdo, where the busiest airstrips on the continent are. Most flights to McMurdo are on C-17s or C-130 Hercules. Some of the Hercules are LC-130 -- the L  indicates that they have skis. The skis enable them to land and take off on some including ungroomed or poorly groomed snow / ice surfaces. Sometimes they need JATO for takeoff, though, if the conditions aren't great.
McMurdo has three runways which open and close operations during the year: Willy Field, Pegasus, and the Ice Runway. The Ice Runway is on sea ice and the other two are on the Ross Ice Shelf with Pegasus built on blue ice and Willy Field on snow. The Ice Runway breaks up each year during the height of the summer so it is carefully monitored. It bends downwards each time a C-17 lands. That deformation is measured and is one of the parameters that's used to decide when to stop using the Ice Runway each year.
Sometimes, planes designed for non-military use are flown to McMurdo; the New Zealand Antarctic program often flies an Airbus A319 there. As far as I know, a well-groomed snow / ice runway can accommodate any plane in good weather. A Boeing 757 flight to McMurdo from Christchurch had a scary incident recently where it was forced to land in low visibility because it didn't have enough fuel to "boomerang" back to New Zealand. The C-17s often boomerang due to bad weather. The Hercules, like the 757, don't carry enough fuel to boomerang, but they are better at landing in inclement conditions so it doesn't seem to be an issue.
For flights within-continent, Twin Otters and Baslers are in common use.
No, there's no military presence with offensive capability. I don't really understand this (recently added) part of the question -- did you think they'd hit you with antiaircraft??? There's a bunch of air force guys who operate the flights, and a single US Marshall in McMurdo.

Worth noting that there are at least two ice-free runways, as well; the British one at Rothera and the Chilean one on King George Island, both off the Antarctic Peninsula on the other side of the continent.

"did you think they'd hit you with antiaircraft???" -- and anyway antarctica is nearly twice the size of Australia, or the contiguous 48 US states. Even if anybody wanted to, it would be some military effort to patrol the whole thing (and from military bases where? Antarctica itself? Argentina?)

Any plane with tires.
When the ice is plowed it scratches it up and that provides enough of a friction that landings are fairly normal, like landing on concrete.
There are ice runways in Greenland that are used regularly.

And even, a Hercules can land on ice:

Source.
They where built for landing on ice may sound crazy but they are built for land on all kinds of surfaces


text:
Under what conditions may a colorblind pilot fly a Light Sport Aircraft legally?
Are pilots of Light Sport Aircraft within the FAA's jurisdiction required to have color vision? Do colorblind LSA pilots have to take the Operational Color Vision Test (OCVT)? Without the requirement for a medical certificate, where does any testing or certification for color vision come into play?

What I assume you are talking about is the drivers license medical loop here in the US that allows you to fly LSA aircraft with only holding a Drivers License (in lieu of a medical certificate). You can find the full regulation here but there are a few things you should know.
First off you need to see what your local state requires (since drivers licenses are issued by states not a federal body like pilots licenses). If your state has color blind restrictions on drivers licenses you may have an issue

(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;

If you are stepping down from larger planes into LSA planes you can not use the drivers license if you have ever lost a medical cert

(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and

The catch all clause that may make the colorblind condition an issue is the last requirement in the FAR

(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

There are lots of light signals used in aviation that a red/green color blind person would have issues with. According to this article color blind LSA pilots are restricted from flying into where color light signals may be used (these signals include but are not limited to tower light signals and ground based warning lights like those in the DC area). If your state issues you a color blind restriction on your drivers license it holds here as well,

Of course, any limitations placed on the driver's license would also apply to flying, and a person must always be physically able to perform the flight safely.

Furthermore it seems that according to this article you can have the restrictions lifted if you can pass a color blind test (I assume this applies to both the LSA restrictions as well as the regular PPL restrictions)

The article says that stating that sport pilots may not operate in B/C/D airspace was a mistake, and the answer corrects it: In the October 2009 "Ask EAA's Experts" column, we stated that a person could not fly into Class B, C or D airspace as a sport pilot if he or she is colorblind, even with the proper endorsements. We're not sure how or why we said that, but the only restriction should have been that the colorblind sport pilot might not be allowed to fly into an area requiring interpretation of light gun signals.

Bit of pedantry here: is it that the pilot can't fly into B, C, or D airspace (because lights may be used), or can't fly into the airspace if lights are being used

I know in the DC space they are used to alert you so there is always a chance they may be directed at you. I would assume its a "May be used situation" similarly towers use light signals if coms are down which is another "may be" situation.

@CGCampbell The restriction on the 3rd class medical if you fail the plate test and light gun signal test is Not valid for night flying or color signal control. - so you couldn't fly into a controlled airport with a dead radio expecting light gun signals (even if you'd pre-arranged clearance through/into the required airspace without the radio you're not eligible to fly by "color signal control"). The same logical restriction would apply to Sport Pilots: If the regs would require you to interpret "color signals" you can't perform that operation.

I had this restriction on my medical and had it removed after I took the light gun test. It consists of reading a sectional and getting 12 out of 12 light signals from the tower right (6 from 1000ft distance, 6 from 1500ft). For me personally this was rather easy. For a class one/ two medical, you also need to take a flight with the examiner to make sure you can positively identify good or bad emergency landing sites.


text:
What is common number of flight hours a year for an airline pilot?
Reading various reports including number of flight hours of the pilots I always wonder how it relates to years of service. In most professions, people work 40 hours a week, which gives around 1900 hours a year (assuming 4-5 weeks vacation as is usual in Europe). But pilots seem to have much fewer flight hours. I even read that in certain military operation the norm was 750 hours in a year. But that was difficult military operation and I haven't seen any number for common airline operations.
So how many flight hours is usual for full-time airline pilot to log in a year? And what does he do in the rest of his duty time? Or does he have less duty time than the usual 40 hours a week?

Flight hours are limited to 30 hours in 7 days, 100 hours in a month and 1000 in a year.  Scheduling rules also say I need at least 1 day off a week, so 6 day trips are the max for me (121 US domestic scheduled).
Let's look at a typical trip, which at my company tended to be a 4 day trip.  You want good productive trips, but you can't always get them.  On a 4 day trip let's say I have 6 hours of flight scheduled each day, or 24 hours scheduled that week.  I am getting paid the better of 24 hours or the actual flight time.  Now let's look at my duty day.  For a 6 hour day with 4 legs it was not unheard of to have a 12 hour duty day.  So now for a 4 day trip, I'm "at work" 48 hours and being paid for half of that.  Now consider that I'm not going home every night and my trip starts at 6 am on Friday and ends at midnight Monday night -- that totals to 90 hours away from home.
How does this compare to a 40 hour work week in an office?  In that case you are on duty 40 hours, getting paid 40 hours (or salary) and if you have a 1 hour commute one way, you are spending 50 hours away from home.
Back to the flight schedule.  A given month will have trips less productive than 24 hours and although you can probably build a 96 hour month if you tried, the average line of flying is typically going to be 75 hours of flying.  You can ballpark that will equate to 150 duty hours and 300 hours away from home for the month.
Extrapolate that to a year, and you have 900 flight hours, 1800 duty hours and 3600 hours away from home.  I would say this represents the average US domestic 121 pilot.  Some do more, some do less, but this is pretty typical.
What do we do with all of that duty time that isn't flying?  Let's see:

Eating
Updating charts
Checking the weather
Checking the paperwork
Coordinating with gate agents, ramp agents, fuel agents to make sure we leave on time
Programming the FMS and getting our IFR clearance
Preflighting the airplane
Postflighting the airplane
Doing the weight and balance
Sleeping

Note, that all of these activities require we are at the airport, in the secure area and we are not being paid.  The pay clock starts (roughly) when the airplane is buttoned up and the parking brake is released and ends when the parking brake is set and main cabin door opened.

...and for some perspective, starting wage for a first officer at American Eagle is $25.46/(flight) hour. (at least it was in 2014)

Hold on, how is if legal to not pay you for operations that the airline (and sometimes FAA) are requiring you to do? The airline only pays you for some portion of your job?

@raptortech97 - it's the same for the flight attendants (they aren't paid on the ground), which is why I go out of my way to be helpful to them during boarding/disembarkation. Sucks, but those are the payment rules that the airline/union signed.

@raptortech97: You are paid for job. What the rate is based on is up to agreement and the usual metrics in aviation is flight hours, probably because they are easier to keep track of than total hours.

@JanHudec total hours isn't hard because that is already tracked for per-diem and duty times.  Time from duty in to duty out must be tracked for legality (max times per day, per duty, per rolling 7 days, per month, etc) and total time from duty in on day 1 to duty out on the last day is needed for per-diem calculation.

@casey That's a pretty good breakdown. I've never kept accurate track (because I didn't want to make myself cry), but I've always estimated that for every hour I've had in the airplane I did at least 2-3 hours on the ground. That lines up pretty well with your numbers. :-/

This answer is not applicable to Part 91 commercial pilots. Apart from instructors, flight and duty times are not restricted. I have flown 14.3 hours in a consecutive 16 hour period.

@JonathanWalters that is true, though the question is tagged airline-pilot and airline-operations (and the question body mentioned airline pilots specifically "So how many flight hours is usual for full-time airline pilot to log in a year?") so part 121 regulations are what is being asked about.  If anything, the question title could be edited to "airline" instead of "commercial".

True. Question title put the question into that context when I read it. Maybe it should be edited. A lot of users seem to equate commercial with airline.

@JonathanWalters as does pretty much all of the general public, reminds me of the  "you're a commercial pilot?  what airline do you fly for?"  I'd get when I was instructing.  I edited the Q title s/commercial/airline/ to match the question content.

Ah yes, brings back lots of memories.

In my experience - very roughly - around 900 hrs per year. That's on domestic short-haul, which for most network schedules is fairly intense. It really is network dependent though.

Is it possible to do paperwork while the autopilot is flying on FL400?

@Christian No, as you have to sign the paperwork before you can depart (dispatch release, fuel order, weather, maintenance sign-offs, logbooks, etc).

@casey I'm talking about tomorrows paperwork

@Christian ah, the paperwork isn't generated that far ahead of time. Dispatch is strongly dependent on current and forecast weather and the specific airplane you are going to fly. As such the paperwork is generated by your dispatcher just an hour or two ahead of time.

14 CFR 121 contains the legal limit for flight time for airline pilots in the US (you didn't specify whose regulations you were interested in):

(a) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule
  any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept an
  assignment for flight time in scheduled air transportation or in other
  commercial flying if that crewmember's total flight time in all
  commercial flying will exceed—
(1) 1,000 hours in any calendar year;
(2) 100 hours in any calendar month;
(3) 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days;

That gives you a rough idea of what the airlines would like every pilot to fly in order to best utilize them.  The actual number of hours flown however depends on a lot of things, including the lines that the pilots bid on and whether or not they pick up any extra trips.
While this appears less than a "typical" job, keep in mind, this limit only applies to flight time (which oddly enough includes time taxiing the airplane).  The crew will spend additional time before the trip, between each leg, and at the end of the trip taking care of things like pre-flights and post-flights, getting clearances, doing paperwork, etc.

It's not that odd to include taxi time in flying hours - the definition is 'stick time' which is the time pilots are actually in control of the aircraft. In places like Australia, stick time defines your pay (for pilots flying under the domestic 'award' ie. industrial agreement for pay purposes).

At a large major airline, 600-800 hours per year is a common number.
This lower number can be due to various factors:
1) Many pilots spend part of the year on "Standby" or "Reserve".
2) Many pilots get 6-7 weeks (or more) vacation.
3) Airline pilots often have to position or "Deadhead" in order to complete their flights.
4) Some airlines do not count longhaul crew rest as loggable hours.
5) Some airlines give hourly credit towards the monthly total for Simulator training or annual recurrent training.
6) Some airlines give hourly credit towards the monthly total for long duty days with unproductive flying. (eg. minimum 4:25 per day or 1/2 duty day credit)
7) Some airlines give hourly credit towards the monthly total for long layovers that result in unproductive flying. (eg. 1/4 time away from base credit)

Sim training is often done at 50% credit - depends on the industrial agreeement though. 'Credit' is definitely the measure that is used universally. Actual flying-the-aircraft is always 100% credit time, other activities (sim time, positioning etc.) are <100% credit, depending on the industrial agreement.

authors: Анна Фломбойм


text:
How close is X-Plane experience to real flying?
I started using X-Plane and am surprised at the easiness of flying (using a flight controller). Does this simulation software reflect how it is to fly (in any way) in reality?
From using the simulator, I understand that all I need to do is to switch the engines on, turn the brakes off and fly. Are there any additional things apart from a pre-flight checklist that an actual airline pilot has to do?
In addition, I understand that I haven't dove into the details of navigation in X-Plane as I am just wondering if the basics of the simulator software reflect real life conditions.

See this related question (pardon the title).

Flying is the easy part. Now, shoot an ILS to minimums in a crosswind while talking on the radio. :)

@falstro Still trying to learn how to navigate with bearings, etc.  It's pretty hard, even in a simulator...

Ok, then remove the ILS and IMC part, just take off and land with a crosswind on a narrow runway (without leaving it) :)

If you want a good simulation of ATC, you might try PilotEdge, that definitely cranks the realism up by quite a bit.

Alternatively: VATSIM for an ATC experience and also Pilot Training programs, training material for simulator pilots, etc.

There are some things in X-Plane I find very unrealistic.  For instance, sometimes after landing a helicopter and turning off the engines, the whole thing starts tipping over as the blades spin down if I don't maintain control inputs!

@SentryRaven vatsim is hardly realistic. they claim to be, but they're often so amateurish it's beyond silly, and some of their "mandatory procedures" are laughable from a reality point of view. Still better than the built in ATC of your sim though.

X-Plane is a much truer simulation of flying than that flight game Microsoft used to make. In fact, when coupled with certified hardware and a CFI, X-Plane can power a sim that you can actually log FTD time in.
Since you ask about airline flying for your comparison, there is a lot more to that than just the flying. An airline pilot is, with few exceptions, always operating under instrument flight rules (IFR). This means flying in the clouds with no reference to anything but instruments, weather as bad as a few hundred feet visibility and strong crosswinds for landing and takeoff are all part of normal ops. You are also operating under ATC, so radio ops are normal. The only comparable computer simulation of ATC to reality is VATSIM (as mentioned in comments), though it doesn't approach the level of busyness that you'll find in some airspace and airports (with the exception of some of their organized fly-ins).
A transport category jet is also a bit more complicated than "turn the engines on, release the brakes and go". The only computer sims that capture the level of detail properly are ones like the A-10 simulator by DCS. Before you can start the engines, you need to first power the aircraft and perform your receiving checklists, and if you are the first flight of the day, additional first-flight checks. These cover:

Thorough pre-flight walkaround inspection
Powering the airplane on batteries
Transition to ground power (GPU) or start the APU for power
Verifying the state of all systems
Fire test
Stall warning test
Anti-ice system test
Checking oxygen levels and masks
Autopilot test
Backup instrumentation checks

Before pushback:

Verifying fuel load
Get load information from flight attendant/gate agent/dispatch/ramp supervisor
Calculate weight and balance, move passengers and/or bags if needed
Get ATC clearance and program FMS
Flight crew and cabin crew briefings
Weather briefing
Start APU and disconnect ground power and ground air conditioning
Get clearance for pushback

During pushback:

"Before engine start" checklist
Set bleeds / packs for engine start
Communicate with ground crew for engine start

Now you can start an engine. Unlike a small airplane where you start the engine by turning a key in an ignition switch, in bigger airplanes its a series of knobs and buttons to press, sometimes dependent on certain events during the start. Engine parameters must also be monitored in case an abort becomes necessary.
At this point you can get a taxi clearance and start moving toward the runway. You'll go through a couple more checklists, "after start/taxi" and "before departure", to prepare the plane for taxi and takeoff. Once you are on the runway, with all checks completed, with more fuel than your minimum dispatch release, and an ATC clearance you may then release the brakes and go flying. One pilot will fly and the other will monitor instruments.
Much of the above is beyond the typical scope of X-Plane, though some can be addressed with specific aircraft add-ons, manuals and software like VATSIM.

...than that flight game Microsoft use to make I like this analogy.

RIP MS FS :( I've been playing FS2004 for over a decade: ever since when my dad got it for me when I was 7.

"when coupled with certified hardware and a CFI, X-Plane can power a sim that you can actually log FTD time in" Actually, so can MSFS - Redbird sims are (were?) using FSX as their engine.

@egid I think Redbird might now be using Prepar3d http://www.prepar3d.com/, which is actually the successor to FSX. From what I understand they took over the actual codebase initially and now have made it into a real flight sim. [edit] I just checked and the Redbird Jay uses it for sure (http://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products/jay)

Pacific Simulators of New Zealand builds full-up two-place professional-grade fixed-base 737-800 and A320 simulators, using Prepar3D as the core software.

X-Plane and other simulators can be set up to reflect the complexity of real-life aircraft systems, down to a certain level of detail, e.g. most serious flight-sim enthusiasts usually start their complex aircraft1 from what is called "cold and dark" configuration manually, rather than using a pre-defined shortcut to start up the engines. Some configuration options that would have no benefit in flight simulation are obviously omitted, such as temperature control of the cabin or pressure control of the cabin.
The flight dynamics are in most cases very close to the real aircraft, but the simulator will of course lack the actual feeling of movement, which can only be simulated in full-motion simulators to a certain degree. Since the systems are a calculation of the real thing, some phenomena such as ILS (Instrument Landing System) errors due to deflection are not simulated, but can be encountered in real life. The simulator can also be set to ignore weather, which is not an option in reality. Weather phenomena such as windshears and gusting winds may not be properly simulated throughout all simulators alike or require additional software to come close to realistic simulation.
Unless you are part of an flight-sim network such as VATSIM, you will also lack the experience of ATC, which is an essential part of real aviation.

Related question:
Can Microsoft Flight Simulator help me learn to fly (or make me a better pilot)?

1: The default aircraft in x-plane and MS Flight Simulator are not very complex and do not have the level of detail you would expect. This is why there are developpers publishing realistic aircraft addons for simulators.

You mean you don't have an 'Ignore Weather' switch in your airplane? ;) In mine, it's right beside the 'Physics Override' switch. It sure makes those crosswind landings a lot easier.

@reirab I have to enter a code in my plane to override weather and do what I want: 7700!

@SentryRaven: beware that in most models that's just an ATC override, and won't actually turn off weather effects.

@HenningMakholm eh, it's close enough. What's the worst that could happen? ;)

I'm a private pilot. I used X-Plane before getting my license, and a little bit while I was working on it.
I would say X-Plane is a good simulator. There are some things though that are just not at all realistic. Landings are WAY too easy on X-Plane. You just get the plane above the runway, cut the engines, and you'll land. You could be like 100 feet above the runway and it'd probably land okay by just cutting the engines. A real plane is not like this at all.  In fact, X-Plane is so easy to land that it interferes with practicing different types of landings (short, soft, slips, etc.) You can't even really practice landings with it -- at least not with any fidelity to reality.
I would also say that in general the planes don't "feel" that real. Everything is too perfect. For example, in a real plane, if you jam the throttle forward too quickly, you can kill the engine or make it backfire. This may sound like a trivial detail, but people have died on takeoff because they never learned proper throttle technique. The fact that you can't simulate this in X-Plane is one small example of the "over perfection" of the simulation. There are countless others.
The fact that you can't pivot your head (or even simulate it with a joystick or something) is majorly annoying. You basically have little fixed views that you can switch to with a high-hat button on your yoke.
The X-Plane design team seems to have focused heavily on realism of airflow and weather, and not so much on realism of the world. When you're learning cross country flight, it would be wonderful to fly a trip in X-Plane and have familiar landmarks, but alas it doesn't work that way unless you're in a major metropolitan area.
So it's a good simulator, but it's not super close to reality. It's great for learning (most) procedures, and it certainly gives you a rough idea of what piloting is like, but sometimes I found it more of a hindrance than a help when I was learning to fly.

All valid points. Modeling and plugins can make airplane behavior better, and you can use something like TrackerXP to look around the 3D view (hopefully Oculus Rift someday), but it will always fall short of the real thing.

I should mention that I messed around with X-Plane last night and found out that you can switch the high-hat so that it becomes a "rotate" command. This helps with visualization a bit. It's still a little unnatural though.

Also, in XP as in any sim you don't get a real feel for the control forces involved. You can slam the rudder hard left and the aircraft instantly reacts, same with the other controls and engine power. In the real thing, there's both a delay before your actions take effect and you need to apply force to counter the air flowing around the controls of a light aircraft (no power steering in a C172...).

I use x-plane and its great if you realize what you are using it for. I will offer some notes on various aspects of the software
Hardware:
Before I get into the software I assume you are using some kind of a yoke and rudder pedals. If you are not it is well worth getting a yoke (or stick), throttle, and pedal setup this will mimic what you find in a plane and will help you gain some muscle memory.
Flight mechanics:
You can get some very real planes on here and X-Plane gives you a great way to see what happens with certain control inputs. The only thing you cant really get is control force. A real plane (I fly small GA stuff) will apply force on the yoke that you will have to trim off. Although X has trim and it works nicely you cant trim based on control force so I find that I over trim in the sim often.
The plane its self will behave very closely to what it does in real life. I use X to practice landings and approaches as it gives a nice feel of what will show on what instruments.
Navigation:
This is perhaps one of the best powers of X, you can get really good practice tracking VOR's in the sim and just get accustomed to what you need to do and when you need to do it. This will help you in the navigation stage of training. When I am running something in the sim I use my current paper charts and X has everything just as it is on the chart.
Landmarks:
I fly in the PA area and the landmarks, even when flying at a very low resolution setting, are very accurate.
Checklists:
The only things you cant check is the exterior of the plane. But all of your interior check lists you can do. I have a sim saved that starts at my FBO with the engines off, check everything, start them up, taxi out, run up check, and take off all in the sim. You can also use it for things like engine out practice and various emergency procedures.
The idea is that the sim is not perfect, you wont feel what you feel in a real plane but its a great training tool and has really helped me to understand flight mechanics and the overall operation of the plane.

Before flying the pilot needs to check the plane to make sure it doesn't have any damage and everything is in working order. Like control surfaces move the way you expect them to, all tires are inflated, the fuel isn't contaminated and so on.
The the pilot needs to taxi from the parking spot to the runway. While making sure to not to bump into any other while talking to the tower. Then line up set flaps increase power and go.

Thanks for clarifying although I did know about the taxiing part.

I just got my PPL and started working on my IFR. I would add that the risk of being up 3000 ft or as close as 100ft off the ground cannot be simulated. Knowing that poor risk management can take your life, your passenger's lives, others on the ground or cause property damage is not possible - but that's the reason to use the sim.... I think.
I am considering building my sim in the hopes that I can practice and retain some muscle memory during non-flying days. For personal piloting, I find that my real world plane skills get rusty too quickly and I need to continue practicing in order to stay sharp to handle various flying conditions and events.
Hope this helps.

Welcome to the site, RDR! Thank you for telling us why using a flight sim is sensible. Could you please expand the answer a little and let us know how close X-Plane comes to real flying? After all, on this site answers should try to address the actual question at the start of the page.

" In the real world, keeping the aircraft level, lined up and flaring in the presence of any kind of cross wind is very tricky. Go to a small airport and watch a student landing sometime. ."
Students pilots are having that problem because they haven't yet fully developed the spatial coordination of flying a plane. People landing on the simulator as a beginner are no different, if anything, worse. Of all the people who've never handled any type of plane (real or otherwise) who I've tried to see land my plane on Xplane, not ONE even got it on the runway - in the first place!
"They balloon, land on one wheel and go screeching across runway, drop the nose hard".
To be honest I still do things like that on Xplane on rare occasions - it's just that in the simulator you aren't feeling it, and you are watching it on a small screen, so it doesn't seem as obvious. What people often pass as a "good" landing on Xplane would be a dreadful landing in a real plane. I think that's an important point to make. I watch people streaming Xplane (on twitch or youtube) and the number of landings on the side of the runway, swerving off the side and on again, serious bounces, even overshooting the runway on a few flights I've watched - this is seen as "normal" to many sim pilots - shockingly enough. In real life, these landings would have you under investigation.
"In a simulator you just get the aircraft near the ground going the right speed and, boom, you land, easy. In the real world this does not happen at all."
LOL, no. Not in the ones I use (I use XPlane 10 FWIW). Not even close.
When someone who's never flown the Simulator or real plane before tries to land the simulator, they can't even get to the runway! I invite people to try and land my plane on my simulator and the last time I did it (I gave it to them lined up with the runway, configured for landing, good weather, on the glide slope with me controlling the throttles), they ended up over controlling so badly we nearly went in the sea at a 40° bank angle going 30 degrees off course to the left of the runway (I took over before the inevitable crash). You could consider that person a "student pilot") of the simulator. I found it funny anyway, because I am evil.
In contrast, my first landing attempt in the real plane was much more simple than this - and I actually got to the runway in the first place!!!! That said, I still bounce my Xplane landings quite often! That's after using it for years!
So yeah the sim feels different than the real plane, but no easier to someone whose done neither before.

Flight simulators are great for learning systems and procedures.
If you have good quality controls (professional-quality yoke, pedals, and throttle), then you can even learn complex procedures, such as instrument flying using a simulator like X-Plane.
However, that said, flight simulators are not realistic depictions of actual flight. For example, in real flight in a small aircraft you frequently get bumped by gusts and have to constantly be doing small corrections. A simulator flies very smooth and completely lacks this reality.
Likewise, in real flight the air is constantly challenging you on a windy day. You will be on short final and get sink or gusts that will knock you off your line and you have to INSTANTANEOUSLY react and adjust correctly or you will end up having to do a go around. It can be very chaotic, especially anywhere there are hills or mountains and air is bouncing around. Once again a simulator just does not capture this at all.
I find landing in simulators to be completely unrealistic. Since this is by far the hardest part of flying, simulators cannot really teach you at the real level. In a simulator you just get the aircraft near the ground going the right speed and, boom, you land, easy. In the real world this does not happen at all. In the real world, keeping the aircraft level, lined up and flaring in the presence of any kind of cross wind is very tricky. Go to a small airport and watch a student landing sometime. They balloon, land on one wheel and go screeching across runway, drop the nose hard, etc. It's a mess. A beginner without an instructor will be a large risk of ground looping. The simulator completely eliminates all these problems.

If you turn on wind shear and gusts, the simulator flight becomes significantly less smooth.

@fooot True, I have not really experimented with tweaking a sim for "realistic" flight, so you may be able to approximate somewhat conditions better than what I have experienced.

So you haven't tried to make it realistic, but you're commenting on how realistic you think it is?

@fooot I am an ebil little man.

@fooot: Somehow I doubt that any home simulator has the equipment needed to bounce your chair around according to gusts, change G-force when you turn or dive, or even provide feedback on the controls.  For one instance, how do you know when you're flying close to a stall in a light plane?  From instruments, or looking out the window?  No, you FEEL how the controls act.

True, the feel of the controls in a simulator is lifeless, but in a real aircraft you feel the air through the controls.

hey guys I just read through a whole set of comments posted there, I must say as a student pilot most of the things been said about xplane is not quite true, or further more I should say I don't know what version of xplane they are using or whether they are using a joy stick or the actual yoke and throttle controls be it multi or single and last but not least rudder pedals.
if you are using a joystick to fly just forget it no experience or sorta feel for real flight there.
After spending some time in a real aircraft flying it you gotta have some idea of what to look for when building your sim so you can translate what you see to a feel on your controls and try and get something from there. Also to get around, you gotta take the sim serious as you were or are in the real thing, what I am say is if you mess up there in a flight session, treat it as if you did it in the real thing.
I find xplane 11 very realistic just a few things are missing though, but where flight dynamics are concerned, with some of the default aircraft e.g the Beech Baron, the Cessna 172 and the piper turbo arrow (well that one is payware) they are not the most easy aircraft to fly and land if you don't have some sorta experience.
I think xplane can get you pretty close as to what to sorta expect in the real aircraft. Have you ever notice how the nose gets heavy as you just about setting up your flare and power adjustments as you are over the ground about to touch down? xplane simulates that pretty dam well, I must say I was surprised, it caught me a few times and the landing was really hard all 3 wheels bang on the ground etc in real flight that's problems.
So to the sim pilots or budding future pilots that out there I must say xplanes 11 is a really good way to go with a good set of controls to take you closer to reality

Welcome to aviation.SE! You might find the [tour] is helpful if you're new to the site.

Please read the relevant section in thehelp center to understand why your answer is downvoted and to edit it accordingly.


text:
Does the direction of counter-rotating props affect efficiency?
From my brief Wikipedying, if counter-rotating props' tops go towards each other, each has a reduced P-factor so the loss of either engine won't yaw the aircraft as hard as if the bottoms come together.
As I don't really care about safety of my aircraft's occupants (usually a couple ants after it sits on the grass) or reliability, I'd prefer to increase the P-factor for fun and flat spin potential. Out of curiosity, does the direction of counter-rotating props (rather, counter- or similar- in a twin) affect the efficiency?

If your aim is to increase the P-factor, why not try a twin whose props both spin the same way, such as a Dragon Rapide. But please don't try to spin a historic aircraft if you don't know what you're doing.

This is a model aircraft (I suppose my "ants" comment was a bit thick)

You might find reading about the P-38 Lightning or F-82 Twin Mustang interesting. If I'm not mistaken both of these airplanes had counter-rotating propellors such that the p-factor was least favorable on both sides. I believe this was done to make the unfavorable characteristics from slipstream less and to reduce stall speed with both engines operative. In any case, this setup is definitely less stable and would probably give you some great spins in a model. Then again, with a model the p-factor difference is probably immeasurable.

It might. Depending on how close to the wingtips your props are.
If you put the props right at the wingtips, then the conventional rotation to minimize precession and torque actually decreases efficiency by promoting tip vortex (the direction of the prop is the same as tip vortex thereby adding to tip vortex). This reduces lift for the same amount of airspeed.
On the other hand, rotating it the other way round - away from each other - reduces tip vortex by twisting the slipstream the opposite direction as the tip vortex. This increases lift (technically, it reduces the reduction of lift due to tip vortex) for the same amount of airspeed.
One plane that exploited this was the Vought XF5U - the Flying Pancake. The direction of prop rotation is fairly obvious in this picture:

The interesting result of this was that even though the XF5U had very short wingspan it could do short take-offs.

Since you're flying model aircraft I thought you'd get a kick of this video of prototypes of the XF5U including an RC version doing a hover long before 3D bacame a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfpTDOAfj7Y


text:
For a Part 61 IFR rating, how much can be done alone on a simulator?
Per Wikipedia:
Requirements for Instrument Rating in the United States are listed in section 61.65 of the Federal Aviation Regulation[2] are:

50 hours of Pilot in Command cross country
40 hours of simulated or
actual instrument time
15 hours of flight instruction towards
Instrument Rating

Does this mean that 40 hours could be done on a simulator alone or does that overlap with the 15 hours with the instructor?

To clarify, the 40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time required in FAR 61.65(c)(2) does NOT refer to time in a simulator. Rather, it is making the distinction between flight in simulated (i.e. "under the hood" or simulator/training device) and actual "in the soup" instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The use of simulators and training devices are actually addressed elsewhere in the FARs (see casey's answer).

The short answer: It depends.  Either 10, 20 or 30 hours of simulator/FTD/ATD time may be used, but all of it must be with an approved instructor.  None of it may be solo.
None of the requirements you posted are related to simulator time.

50 hours of Pilot in Command cross country

This can be done solo, as you are a rated pilot and thus PIC.  This need not be solo XC and can be done with a passenger or CFI.

40 hours of simulated or actual instrument time

In this quote, simulated instrument time refers to time spent in the airplane during flight in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) that you are wearing a view-limiting device to simulate IMC.  While wearing a view-limiting device you must be accompanied by another pilot who acts as your safety pilot.  Thus, none of this time may be accomplished solo.  You will always need another pilot either in simulated or actual instrument conditions.

15 hours of flight instruction towards Instrument Rating

This time may overlap with the above (actually, must overlap), the regulation reads (14 CFR 61.65 (d)(2)):

(2) Forty hours of actual or simulated instrument time in the areas of operation listed in paragraph (c) of this section, of which 15 hours must have been received from an authorized instructor who holds an instrument-airplane rating...

Now back to your question, what about simulator time?  For this we look further down to 14 CFR 61.65 (h) and (i)

(h) Use of flight simulators or flight training devices. If the instrument time was provided by an authorized instructor in a flight simulator or flight training device—
(1) A maximum of 30 hours may be performed in that flight simulator or flight training device if the instrument time was completed in accordance with part 142 of this chapter; or
(2) A maximum of 20 hours may be performed in that flight simulator or flight training device if the instrument time was not completed in accordance with part 142 of this chapter.

and

(i) Use of an aviation training device. A maximum of 10 hours of instrument time received in an aviation training device may be credited for the instrument time requirements of this section if—
(1) The device is approved and authorized by the FAA;
(2) An authorized instructor provides the instrument time in the device;
(3) No more than 10 hours of instrument time in a flight simulator or flight training device was credited for the instrument time requirements of this section;
(4) A view-limiting device was worn by the applicant when logging instrument time in the device; and
(5) The FAA approved the instrument training and instrument tasks performed in the device.

The use of simulators and flight training devices is covered by (h) above, and the limit of 20 or 30 hours depends on how the training is conducted.  In either case, note that time must be "provided by an authorized instructor".  Section (i) deals with lesser training devices that are limited to 10 hours but is also required to be conducted by an authorized instructor.
Reprising the short answer, any time spent in a simulator, flight training device or aviation training device where you are solo or without an authorized instructor does not count toward anything.  Sim time is only valid when conducted by an authorized instructor.

Additionally, FAR 61.51(g)(4) specifically requires that "an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person’s logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session" in order for it to count towards experience requirements for a certificate or rating.

I don't know of any simulators that students are allowed to log solo time in.
To the best of my knowledge, the 40 hours of actual or simulated instrument time is time that you could acquire while wearing a view limiting device (while your appropriately-rated friend sits in the right seat to scan for traffic), not time that you could get solo in a sim.